2008 Honda Civic
totalsports
Member Posts: 5
in Honda
Does anyone have any info on any changes to the 2008 Civic...IE: Colors....Bluetooth Etc
0
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
A really simple improvement would be to add a $5 relay so that the headlights turn off when you turn off the car. This has been standard on many cars for over 10 years. It ain't rocket science, folks....instead we get a dopey dinger that tells you the lights are on.....
the only real changes i'd like to see in the civic probably wont happen until gen 9. i would like to see what the current gens face lift will look like though. (01-03 civic, looked ok but 04-05 was a very nice sublt improvment.)
standard on my 97 camry for one. very convenient. the relay that would make it work costs no more than the dinger.
Oh, and the chev also had the dingy thing too - it just had an idiot proof backup as well.
Just my opinion, but its one that I believe would be shared by a lot of people (based on what I've read in other threads here).
The engine's peaky nature simply wouldn't mesh well with an automatic.
As for changes I'd like to see, the only thing I'd like to see (at least on the Si side) would be a more torquing engine, but that sort of improvement is probably a few years off, at least not until the next gen comes out.
I think the biggest changes will be saved for the MMC for the 2009 model year. Honestly, I hope the MMC will bring dramatic changes, including a new interior. As a current owner of an '06 Accord, I love the quality and the layout of my Accord's interior. I despise nearly everything about the current Civic's. I am sure Honda won't go to the trouble of re-designing the interior (some people like it) but it's the interior that kept me from buying one.
As far as the exterior goes, I think the Civic coupe looks awesome just the way it is. I wouldn't want them to make dramatic changes (probably new bumpers, maybe LED taillights?). The sedan needs a little more work I think... new bumpers, new taillights, new grille. I wonder if the 2008 Accord styling will rub off on the Civic?
an a/t simply wouldn't work. make the si's engine at least 2.2 or 2.3 litres making the same power to displacement ratio and then we would be fine. but honda would SOO make us pay for that. a gti for example does fine with the dsg, it has a ton of tq. the si requires a manual; its not about tradition but just the nature of the engine.
any 2.0 with paddle shifters would be great; a sort of competitor for the base se-r and mazda 3 2.3. this is basically available on the csx in canada, and on the uplevl civic in japan. its the engine from the old si/ base rsx. i think it would be great; but honda already made the mistake of putting the si moniker on a car with that engine; it wont happen again.
revisions to the face and butt, little interior upgrades and maybe some different looking wheels. and maybe more accordish gauges. (same layout, nicer displays.) Anyone remember what an 01-03 civic looked like compared to an 04-05? a subtle difference (a good one at that) but NOTHING major.
the 08 accord proabably wont rub off; its the new civic that rubbed on. they match stylistically now as opposed to one looking modern and one looking futuristic.
An Automatic Si seems VERY pointless to me.
The point of an Automatic Si would be to get the upgraded engine and equipment without having the burden of manually shifting.
Why? Well, I suppose spoiled, modern-day teens are finding it very difficult to shift at the same they are simultaneously smoking and sending cellphone text messages. Have you no sympathy for the 'gen-nothing' ers? LOL.
while i agree about the feature content, the engine is the problem.
take a performance model like a VW gti, or sentra se-r; they come with both a type of auto matic transmission and a manual. Why the auto? well because those engines, while having high hp numbers, have LOTS of torque, and DO NOT make their peak hp and tq right before redline like the si does. The si is also lacking significant torque, so a manual totally suits its nature.
Honda is not stupid; they know and understand the limitations and advantages of a high revving high hp engine, and what not to do with it.
Actually, its been proven that if you drive the si like a normal car, aside from the handling, (which still requires you to go quickly) it feels like a normal civic...any true honda enthusiast therefore wouldn't want to pay the premium for the si just for the visual upgrades, seeing as how the automatic tranny would make you not want to drive fast because of how it would hold gears to redline, which in turn makes you use the engine like the regular civics engine, and thus negating the want or need to get the si for 'more motor.'
honda's problem is the way they package base colors with the interiors.
and the honda silver is the BEST silver of all time.
actually, there is an engine that that honda made that had similar specs to the k20 in the si. it was called the f20 and it came in european/austrailian/new zeleand accord SiR's.
it was a 2.0 with 180 hp, and made about the same torque, but it was tuned for midrange power and only redlined at about 7200 rpms. and it met its peak torque much earlier than the si did.
Actually grad, this engine is a swap available for your older accord;...you should look into it!
"Us guys" aren't all the same. I have two cars, and both are automatics. They are also well-suited to those transmissions, with reasonable torque peaks and modest redlines. If my Accord had a 8k Redline and max torque above 6,000 RPM, I'd be in a different boat...er...car.
"Teenlust for slapping a stick" is an interesting phrase. I'm 19, and know how to drive a manual, but when car-shopping, an automatic suited me best, as it was more practical in my trafficky commute. Yes, I'm turning 20 next month, and yes, I chose practicality (4-door, 4-cyl, automatic midsize) over a car that one might "lust" after.
Give us some credit. We're not boy racers (well, I'll speak for myself anyway), I just know that the inherent characteristics of the Civic Si engine would make an automatic Si not much quicker than an automatic Civic EX.
If the Civic Si had as much torque as horsepower, I'd definitely feel differently (assuming a fair amount of it was available below astronomical RPMs).
Now, I know that this is gonna spark the argument for those.... I don't even know what they're called, automatics that you can switch over into a "clutchless manual" mode... So I'll throw out my opinion on those now... if you want to be able to sit there and let your car drive you places, get an AT. If you want to have some control over your engine, get a MT. I may be a bit of a purist sometimes, but enough of this stupid fence-sitting madness...
On an open, winding road though, a 5 or 6 speed manual is more fun, although not as much more fun as it was 20 years ago (you drive over half a million miles, and the thrill level drops a fair bit, I guess - although I still enjoy driving).
if i had the money for a gti right now guess what transmission i'd choose? the dsg.
i don't really have a teenlust for slapping stick at all; and guys this isn't a 'the benefits of a manual' and 'i'm oldschool/a purist so i drive stick' type of argument: honda knows that the high revving k20 simply does not suit an automatic.
if they stuck the k24 from the tsx with its 210hp and 160+lbs of torque, ok we are good now. but k20a with auto=no.
Nonsense.
- It would be quicker than the EX. Reason enough.
- The Honda Civic Si doesn't use a turbocharger.
- The automatic should be an OPTION, not standard.
- It would be quicker than the EX. Reason enough.
You don't understand. It wouldn't be quicker. To get the speed from this engine you have to get the RPM's higher than an AT would permit.
The torque at the low end (which is what you'd get from the AT) is not high enough to give you any additional speed over the EX.
See post #16 for more information.
An automatic would be a detriment to the "Si" badge. Much like the disgraceful 3.8L Impala SS with the Supercharged V6. The "SS" badging is symbolic of a muscle car (something the GM 3.8L is not). In the same way, the Si represents a very pure sports car experience (light, loud, and racy). And automatic would go against the Si moniker's purpose, cheapening its worth.
Someone with access to the Vehicle Locator on the Honda Interactive Network confirmed the Civic trim levels with leather for 2008.
The Vehicle Locator screen on the Honda Interactive Network shows an EX-L model.
Interestingly enough, you can get Navi with cloth or Leather.
FA1598JNW - Civic 4DR EXL 5MT
FA1598KNW - Civic 4DR EXL NAVI 5MT
FA1698JNW - Civic 4DR EXL 5AT
FA1698KNW - Civic 4DR EXL NAVI 5AT
FG1198JNW - Civic 2DR EXL 5MT
FG1198KNW - Civic 2DR EXL NAVI 5MT
FG1298JNW - Civic 2DR EXL 5AT
FG1298KNW - Civic 2DR EXL NAVI 5AT
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=684412&page_number=1
http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman2/publish/Civic_7/2008_Honda_Civic_MUGEN_- Si_Sedan_Set_for_Fall_Release.shtml
an auto tranny is built to keep you in the optimal powerband.
do you WANT to NEVER be below 6k?
i agree with grad....very little initial get up and go, especially since the k20 in this civic is NOT tuned for midragne torque at all.
it goes against everything 'si'.
and the suspension, while probably great, is just limited to firmer springs and shocks? and an exhaust that adds a couple horsies?
this is def for the jdm whore...except that being built in america, its NOT jdm!
mugen's stuff is really nice looking, but its not exactly worth the price paid.
look at all the other 30k compacts based on econo boxes: the sti, the evo, the R32 they have something extra to back up the price! not just an aftermarket suplier who makes just as good as stock components that look cooler. (this is cool in itself, and the mugen si is a VERY good looking car, but not worth 30. maybe like 25k.)
i was expecting more. it'll be great in a decade...but unfortuantely, its resale wont be as good as say, and r32, if peopole don't lap it up. i think thats why there is only 1k being made, to ensure they all go.
again, if you handed me one for free, or if i was in the market for an si and they had one only slightly more than a regular si sedan, i'd take it.
otherwise, if i had 30k to spend, its an r32 for me.
just if you're interested in hearing nearly the same opinion from different people...
Forget this low slung car, unless your arms 'hug the ground' when you walk and you are trying to compensate for something else that's too short.
I disagree with Honda on many of the things they did not include for the non-Si Civics.
For one, the manual transmission's high gears are too short for me. Manual lovers come in two breeds; people like me who want high mileage, and other people who want performance. Honda has the Si for performance yet the Automatic gets better mileage on the highway (albeit the 2008 mileage reports fare slightly better for the manual). I think Honda should have made the final gear taller to get maximum mileage (which is a key reason, especially today, that people purchase a Civic) while saving the shorter, more performance-oriented gearing for the Si.
Speaking of Mazda, who uses a larger engine for sportier models of the 3, why doesn't Honda simply use the Accord 2.4 engine? It may be too large, but they have made slightly larger hoods (like the '96 V6 Accord) to accommodate this.
Why not use the TSX engine?
Honda makes great four-bangers but their love of horsepower with high RPMs usually leaves the torque to be desired.
Wouldn't a larger engine sell more anyway?
Just my two, wordy cents.
i agree with putting a slightly larger engine in the higher trims of civic (like an se trim), and the k20 that was in the old si and currently in the high trim levels in the jdm civic would fit nicely: 155hp, 135lbs of torque from a 2.0. Not so great gas mileage wise, but still no slouch.
while some honda engines leave torque to be desired, they accomplish the same thing the competitors can with regards to speed.
i personally like it, and the fact that you can now get a leather wrapped wheel straight from the factory. (though i feel this should be standard at least on the ex regardless if its an ex-l or not)
anyone think honda should have invested in a slightly sportier se trim between the ex and si over this, but similarly priced? or should they wait it out till gen 9?
I think the EX-L trim is great. It's about time someone introduced this. Just because someone wants good gas mileage doesn't mean they don't want leather seats.
I'm thinking about getting an '08 Civic. Leather seats are nice, but for that much bread I could get the Hybrid for practically the same amount after tax credits (and yes, I know the quirkiness of this argument since the Hybrid has no leather seats, and since you already know I am someone who prefers frugal cars over speedy ones).
What are the '08 Accord prices? Smells to me like the EX Civic might be more than an LX Accord. Since all the EX models come with are "creature comforts" like moonroofs and the like, its interesting how Honda is changing their lineup.
Oh, and also, I think they should dump the DX.
A DX Civic + CD Stereo, A/C, special wheels/covers, and maybe cruise control.